Is the Bible true? What are the best historical arguments for the authenticity of it?

How does this prove the bible?

The bible even states in parts that it was written by specific human beings that stated they were writing it. If you believe it was "written by God" then you'd have to disregard that, meaning that you still don't believe it's 100% literally word-for-word accurate, so what's the point of believing that?

Obviously not.
Did a virgin actually get pregnant and give birth?
No.
Did a guy actually come back to life after being murdered?
No.
Did a guy actually split the Red Sea apart into separate columns to walk through?
No.
Did a god literally stop the Earth in place from spinning or keep the sun at the same position in the sky above the earth for an entire day?
No.
If I'm wrong feel free to correct me with any evidence. If this stuff happened or were capable of happening you'd probably have records of it beyond just stuff written down that can't be verified whatsoever.

>No, and it was never intended to be such. That's not the point, and if you think it matters then you don't understand what the bible is for.
You dumb fuck, things don't keep being true when they're not true.

If you don't understand that the Jewish priests who wrote it were l y i n g and putting on a s c a m you understand nothing about it!

>what is the holy spirit
dumb fucking leaf

you cant win with these agnostics and atheists. Our error was using words rather than spears to convince them.

Atheist ideology is poison to a society.

Attached: deep_culture_is_important.jpg (960x937, 64.89K)

It does matter if it's figurative or literal.
The Catholic Church and almost any church I can think of bases the entirety of their religion/belief around the belief that The Bible is the inerrant inspired word of God himself and much of it has to be literally true such as the resurrection and life of Christ.
If all or large important parts of it are not literally true it completely invalidates what they believe.
For example, Christ being literally viewed as the Son of God and all of this other stuff is what makes the Eucharist valid/meaningful in Catholicism, if he's just some guy who cares, he's not in heaven, he doesn't have supernatural powers, etc.

When I say "written by God," I mean it in the same way that people have meant it for the last 2000 years. Sure, the person putting the words onto paper (or parchment) is a human being, but the belief is that they were divinely inspired or in some way getting the message directly from God, the creator of the world who wants to tell us something. That is very different from human beings writing it without divine inspiration. And it doesn't matter if the people truly believed that they were getting their info from God -- it only matters if they ACTUALLY did.

None of that changes the meaning of the stories, though, and it doesn't matter whether any of it actually happened that way or not. It's the ideas being presented that matter.

Not an atheist. I just want proof that the Bible has historical truth. So I don’t want just ideological truth.

The double slit experiment and the Quantum erasure experiment, they both prove that manifestation of complex order and form happens from direct observation. Therefore everything that exists (the universe) is being observed simultaneously by an omniscient and omnipresence being (God) which causes it to exist.

You can also logically argue through phenomenology that in fact you can never "prove" that anything exists at all. So arguing that there is no God by stating that you can't "prove it" - from an unbeliever's paradigm anyway - doesn't prove anything because the "proof" of things existing are within the experience.

If you take LSD or have a near death experience you might see something that you will call "God" and then you'll understand what Jesus saw probably by starving himself in the desert or during his baptism. This is probably what Buddha saw also in meditation, and each talked about it in the langage of their culture, hence the many similarities in their doctrine. It is what Tolstoi calls "the natural religion". It is evident from the reading of the Bible that part of it are "inspired" that means that they are written by people who have had that universal revelation. A large part of it is also untrustworthy, but the people who curated these texts really respected them and did their best to keep the most trustworthy sources. If you have not seen "God" it is difficult to understand what part is trustworthy (e.g. god forgives) and what part is not (e.g. god creates a flood to punish humans)

put it this way: is the iliad true?

>When I say "written by God," I mean it in the same way that people have meant it for the last 2000 years.
no you dont. you are ignoring the "holy spirit" aspect again, because you have been taught by television that every single part of the bible was directly commanded in a moses-esque sense.

>Is it a perfectly accurate historical record in which every story absulutely happened exactly like that?
Yes, it is

>written by sheepherders in levantine region
>true
It's a fairy tale, with some good morals but thats it.

Ive heard about the implications of god because of the double slit stuff. Pretty interesting.

Obviously all the things you mentioned go against the laws of nature. But the claim is not that those were natural events. The claim is that they were supernatural events, which happened only a few times in all of history, which means that we can't observe them and have little or no knowledge about them. You're fighting a strawman.

Literally no. The lord of the rings for example is true in a moral sense. People coming together for a greater cause. But I’m asking is their historical evidence for stuff like Jesus.

You dumb nigger. Atheism is the rejection of a claim, not an ideology.

Yes, it is mostly true. There are some errors due to translations and faggot priesthood changing the texts but for the most part it is true.

it's called, faith.

Because the Bible said so IS a good source. In fact it's the only real source.

If you're not reading a corrupt bible (for english pretty much any non KJV) and you earnestly seek the truth you'll find it.

You just want your faith to stand in the wisdom of men, not in the power of God.

Truth is, I could mention how the Bible was way ahead of it's time on science, prophesy, proper methods of sanitation, etc, but that would all mean nothing if you don't believe.

There are many """apologetics""" who try to explain the Bible in a way you see fit, yet they get 0 people saved.

This is the real reason true Christians believe the Bible, they heard it, they decided what they heard was true, and they believed it.

The """rational""" arguments of man are FOOLISHNESS in the sight of God. Likewise, the faith of believers are foolishness to man.

The Lord spoke of this, saying:
>For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Many angry rabbis ITT. I wonder why.

Attached: Michael.jpg (718x960, 106.76K)

No. The Bible is not true.
Abrahamism as a whole is a lie and has caused chaos complete in this World of ours.

Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims need to be purged.

Attached: Divine-Madness.png (220x220, 72.89K)

Many religions say the same. Why is the Bible right? I want to believe. But there are so many others and it makes me sceptical.

Attached: 61539A88-FD67-41E6-8329-707BEDE6FA0A.jpg (700x438, 47.32K)

What about satanists?

Yes. Atlantis existed and was advanced.

The Christians have been fooled not only to accept a demeaning status but they willingly reject and forget the World's history - but I don't blame them. The powers that are simply hide and subvert the Truth... Using things like Abrahamism.

i'm confused because you keep speaking of different kinds of truth but are still treating historicity as a neutral ultimate truth value. all history is a narrative at core, data tells no story on its own

>Atheism is the rejection of a claim
Agnosticism is the rejection of a claim. Atheism is the claim that God does not exist.
You think that the default position is: if there's no proof for it, it doesn't exist. Wrong. The default position is: We don't know. But if you are insisting that God does not exist, it's not enough just to say that the theist cannot prove the existence of God. You have to offer your own arguments to support the claim that God does NOT exist.

Here's the entire book:

"And it was very good."

Attached: 1585972157781.png (500x500, 22.31K)

youtube.com/watch?v=8HuidVzNTBU

This is a good video. It answers all of your questions if you can sit through it.

>the Iliad
>Atlantis
Mutt education ladies and gentlemen.

>Is the Bible true?
Nope. In fact it's almost completely untrue. Its history is virtually all fiction and the supernatural doesnt exist.

Attached: 1560709296141.jpg (1011x1024, 97.13K)

the irony here is that the greatest evidence of atlantis is a description from plato. if you accept the veracity of plato that means you also have to accept his theory of forms which indirectly proves the existence of god

Satan is a term deriven from HaSatan or HaSatanim - literally they are Malachim (Angels) employed by the "Lord" to "test and hinder" Mankind.
They did NOT rebel. They are NOT demons. They are EMPLOYED by "God" to act against Humanity.

P.S ; The Grigori, the 200 fallen Malachim and the chief Samael is more authentic to be a "Satan" as you Christians call it.

>t. Ex-Christian, Ex-Hasidic Jew - now a lover of Greco-Roman values.

It obviously does matter whether or not the events that happened literally happened or not and there's more than just some literary meaning to them or the organizations/institutions that built themselves around the books and the stories contained within them wouldn't themselves care about their literality.
The Catholic Church and Christianity would not at all be the same if the people historically leading them didn't give a shit about the literal truth of the stuff in The Bible.

well, both come from extant documents from thousands of years ago

Massacre of the Innocents never happend

Attached: 436565678.jpg (260x194, 9.4K)

Ilium was found where Homer related it to be. It has traces of the war and of the burning.

You mean the arguement used by Socrates in Plato's "Phaedo"?

No. A Creator guided by logos and a Demiurge guided by envy are two complete opposites.. And Socrates would have the same stance as I.

You People have been fooled.

Ahahaha! Go read some books in Hebrew or Aramaic and then come back to me - snivveling waste of life.

I’ve heard of this guy. Doesn’t he marry mixed couples? Isn’t that against the Bible? Not being facetious I just don’t know if I can trust him.

>Not meant to be taken literally
...
It's meant to be taken literally. That's why it was written and that's why there are churches not because it's a book of fairy tales. It's absolutely meant to be taken literally.

That's not what quantum experiments prove whatsoever, they just imply that direct observation of any type of quantum state causes decoherence of the quantum state to a classical state that can then be observed.

Yes or no would have sufficed, kike.

pretty much every historic civilization uncovered by archeologists and recognized by historians, were only found because details in the bible led the them being discovered and only recognized because of biblical descriptions.

Homer never mentioned Atlantis in the Iliad. Iliad is mentioned by Plato in Timaeus and Critias.

Then no, obviously your mind must be spoonfed answers..

P.S your flag is ugly as shit

who created the demiurge?

Most of it is allegory.

Rabbi's mad x42

Check out Richard Swinburne and David Bentley Hart and the always incredible essays of CS Lewis. Of course Chesterton has his own fantastic arguments.

inspired and authenticated have nothing to do with who penned them.

i know homer never mentioned atlantis. and the iliad was already over a millenium old by the athenian golden age

Unsure. I have theories, though.. according to the Zohar & Sefer HaMalach Raziel.. As well as other non-Jew/non-Aramaic sources

Yes.
No.

Wicken men will twist scripture to push their false beliefs (nationalism, the idea of race, etc)

He has a sermon on that too if you want biblical evidence and he rebutts all of the commonly twisted scriptures men use to pervert the truth.

youtube.com/watch?v=PRCVeqvZKt4

But does that mean that all the gods interfering as described happened too?

>Then no
Okay kike. That's all I wanted you to say in order to prove how stupid Moloch worshipers are.
Dismissed.

is an allegory not true solely by benefit of being an allegory?

Well, there's a lot of timeline appropriate copies of the book, like, more than we have of ancient greek works total. Tacitus and josephus, two historians who we trust as being very accurate both talked about jesus. The empty tomb is historical record. So is the eathquake and eclipse when jesus was crucified.

The jews attempting to build the third temple too early and the workers being beset upon by fire, plague, lighting, and eathquakes is historical record as well.

None of this proves jesus is god per se, but the truth is jesus existed. At his death there was an earthquake and an eclipse. Three days after he died his tomb (watched by sentries the whole time) was found empty. And the jews disobeying their god and building a temple too soon was punished.

Fuck Abrahamism. Fuck Rabbis. Fuck Priests. Imams. All of them.

Abrahamism is a flawed system going back BEFORE Judaism.. Completely flawed. A means of lowering ourselves for the slaughter.

And you? You have no argument. People read your posts and say to themselves, "this guy is either a Shill, a fucking dumbass, or both"

if he's created that he is by necessity inferior to that which created him. only the unmoved mover deserves the name "god". besides manichaeism was thoroughly refuted by the 4th century

Well, considering you are uneducated and are too retarded to understand parables or metaphors, this kind of word soup is expected. Atheists are mental midgets.